Apple could complain that the EU didn’t hold up its end of the bargain while investigating the company’s tax practices in Ireland, according to a report.

Apple is planning to say that the European Union’s investigators unfairly kept their investigation into Apple’s tax practices quiet, and more specifically, failed to say that they had changed their focus before hitting Apple with a massive tax fine, Bloomberg is reporting, citing sources who claim to have knowledge of Apple’s plan. Ireland will join Apple in appealing the fine and will also say that the investigators should have revealed that they had shifted focus.

The news comes approximately a month after the European Union slapped a $14.5 billion tax bill on Apple AAPL, alleging that the company, through a sweetheart tax deal with Ireland, was able to shield itself from paying more taxes on profits over the last several years. Apple quickly rebuffed the accusations saying it had done nothing wrong. Ireland, which could generate billions on the fine, stands with Apple in opposing the EU. The case could go on for years before a final ruling comes down.

The EU started its investigation into Apple’s tax practices in 2014. The investigators said at that time that they were focusing their investigation on transfer pricing agreements, or deals between different units within a company that allows the company (in this case, Apple) to sell goods and services between divisions. Ultimately, the transfer pricing aims at getting the most taxable income to countries where tax polices are most advantageous. In Apple’s case in Europe, that has been Ireland, which charged Apple as little as 0.005% on corporate taxes—much lower than the 12.5% tax rate the EU believes Apple should have paid under Ireland’s statutes.

However, when the EU announced its fine last month, it made no mention of Apple engaging in transfer pricing. Instead, European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s investigation and fine focused on how Apple allegedly shifted the bulk of its European profits to “head offices” that are not subject to tax under the Eurozone’s regulations.

According to Bloomberg‘s sources, Apple had a right to know that the investigators were changing their tack and focusing on head offices instead of transfer pricing. Those sources also told Bloomberg that when Apple and the Ireland government tried to learn more about the shift in focus, investigators wouldn’t hand over critical information.

For more about Apple’s iPhone, watch:

“The commission changed course a number of times and has taken all sorts of steps to obscure that fact from us and from the Irish,” Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell said in a statement to reporters last month after the EU’s fine came down. “We were not given the opportunity to defend this case in the way that we should’ve been.”

“The investigation in this case has proceeded in exactly the same way as all State aid investigations. We have followed all standard procedures,” Cardoso said. “There was no change in the investigation. It has been the same investigation from the start until now. The aid measures under investigation are the two rulings of 1991 and 2007 and this is clearly explained in the decision to open the investigation. The rulings endorsed an internal allocation of profits within Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe, between their respective head offices and branches, allowing Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe to pay very little tax on its profits. This gave Apple a significant benefit compared to other businesses, in breach of EU state aid rules.”

Cardoso added that its investigation was based on “facts” there given to the European Commission by Apple. “This cannot therefore be new to Apple,” Cardoso added.

It’s unclear whether claims that the Commission’s investigators didn’t act fairly will hold up in court. However, Apple might also have itself to blame for not knowing what was happening during the course of the investigation.

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal cited its own sources who said that Apple had an anemic lobbying effort in the EU that left the company in the dark about key shifts in the probe. The report found Apple spent 900,000 euros (about $1 million) on EU lobbying last year. In comparison, Googlegoog, which is having its own investigation troubles with the EU, spent 4.25 million euros during the period. The Journal‘s sources said the lobbying would’ve done little to affect the outcome, but could have given Apple useful information to prepare for the levy.

But now the damage is done, and all Apple can do is appeal the fine and hope for the best.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

Update at 1:45 p.m. ET to include the European Commission’s statement.

How Apple’s Anemic Lobbying Left It in the Dark About the EU Tax Probe

Apple was largely flying in the dark when the European Union’s competition watchdog was investigating its tax practices, due in large part to a lack of lobbying in the eurozone, according to a new report.

The tech giant was unable to gather critical information from the European Union as its competition watchdog, the European Commission, was actively investigating its tax programs, The Wall Street Journal is reporting, citing sources who claim to have knowledge of Apple’s AAPL activities. The information, they say, could have been obtained through lobbying, and might have impacted in some way the European Commission’s decision to hit Apple with a $14.5 billion tax bill.

Lobbying has long been a critical component in not only affecting government decisions, but also gaining insight into what’s happening behind the scenes so companies can be prepared. However, Apple is said to have had an exceedingly small lobbying effort in the EU, and in 2015, it spent less than 900,000 euros (about $1.01 million) in 2015 to lobby the eurozone, The WSJ reports.

In comparison, Alphabet-owned Google GOOGL, which has been dealing with a spate of antitrust complaints in the EU, spent more than 4.25 million euros on lobbying in the EU during the same period.

The Journal‘s sources suggest Apple could have been better prepared for the tax bill. While they acknowledge that the EU would have hit Apple with a fine regardless of its lobbying activity—not to mention most people who followed Apple’s EU troubles knew the bill was coming—they added that Apple could have used broad-based lobbying to influence divisions within the EU and share why it believes, it did nothing wrong.

For more about Apple’s tax bill, watch:

Apple’s decision to spend a relatively small amount on lobbying in the EU isn’t part of a broader corporate view on lobbying. According to OpenSecrets, a U.S. government watchdog that evaluates lobbying spending, Apple spent $4.5 million on lobbying in the U.S. last year. So far this year, it’s spending has reached $2.25 million. Apple’s chief lobbying issue? Taxes.

It’s unclear, then, why Apple, which must have known the EU wasn’t pleased with its tax arrangements given all the public statements leading up to the fine, didn’t invest more heavily in lobbying in the EU. But what’s clear is its tax problems won’t be going away anytime soon. And whether spending money on lobbying would have changed that is unknown.

Apple did not respond to a Fortune request for comment on its lobbying spending.

Trump’s Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Quits

Paul Manafort, the chairman of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, has resigned after a wave of allegations about his work for foreign governments as a lobbyist.

Manafort’s resignation comes only hours after the Associated Press reported that his firm run had directed a “covert” lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine’s then-ruling political party, and tried to sway U.S. public opinion in favor of the country’s pro-Russian government. This work was conducted without registering as foreign agents, as required by federal law, the AP reported.

“This morning Paul Manafort offered, and I accepted, his resignation from the campaign,” Trump said in a statement. “I am very appreciative for his great work in helping to get us where we are today, and in particular his work guiding us through the delegate and convention process. Paul is a true professional and I wish him the greatest success.”

The AP said Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, channeled over $2 million into efforts to curry favor with U.S. officials and journalists, pushing the broadly pro-Russian agenda of the the party of then-President Viktor Yanukovych (the ‘Party of the Regions’).

Contrary to the requirements of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act, the AP said, they never disclosed their work on behalf of the Ukrainian government, even though Gates, then working for Manafort’s consulting firm, personally directed the work of two prominent Washington lobbying firms in the matter. Manafort declined to comment to the AP but told Yahoo News that the AP’s version of events was “wrong.”

The development caps a week of tumult for the Trump campaign, in which the GOP nominee has had to field increasing criticism for his apparent chumminess with Russia and its proxies.

Earlier this week, Manafort had tried to deny as “unfounded, silly and nonsensical” claims that he had received cash payments worth up to $12.7 million from a “black ledger” controlled by Yanukovych’s “Party of the Regions.” However, the Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko backed up those claims Friday, showing that a certain Vitaly Kalyuzhny had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for Manafort. The payments appear not to have been declared to local authorities at the time, which would also make them illegal under Ukrainian law.

Kalyuzhny is a pivotal figure in a complex web of lobbying that also has implications for the campaign of the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

According to theNew York Times, Kalyuzhny was a founding board member of a non-governmental organization in Brussels that channeled over $1 million to Washington in an effort not only to U.S. support for Yanukovych’s government, but also to trash the pro-Western Yulia Tymoshenko, who lost the 2010 presidential run-off with Yanukovych and was then jailed on corruption charges after a trial widely condemned as rigged and politically motivated.

Kalyuzhny’s ‘European Center for a Modern Ukraine’, based in Brussels, hired the Podesta Group to get Yanukovych’s message across in DC. Podesta was co-founded by John D. Podesta, who is now chairman of Clinton’s campaign (his brother Tony has taken over the running of the firm).

The AP said the emails it had obtained show Gates personally directed two Washington lobbying firms, Mercury LLC as well as Podesta, between 2012 and 2014 to set up meetings between Ukraine’s foreign minister, Leonid Kozhara, and senators and congressmen on influential committees involving Ukrainian interests. Gates noted in the emails that Kozhara expressly wanted to avoid using his own embassy in the U.S. to help coordinate the visits.

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to correct the name of Kellyanne Conway.

The search and advertising giant, which faces its share of scrutiny from European regulators, is no stranger to straight-on lobbying of government bureaucrats in Brussels. But what the Times is talking about here is “soft lobbying.” That means sponsoring things like concerts, art exhibits, or educational events—the sort of things that might persuade citizens that the company is not a heartless monopoly.

Based on “public filings and industry estimates,” the Times calculated that Google’s goog tab on this effort is about $450 million, ranging from 2015 through 2017. By contrast, the company spent just $4.8 million on old-fashioned lobbying of E.U. officials last year, the Times reported, citing Google’s own transparency report.

Google also faces tax issues in Europe where some in government accuse it (and other U.S. companies) of not paying their fair share. Last Sunday, Google chief executive Sundar Pichai pushed back against these claims. There are also worries in Europe about how and where Google, Microsoftmsft, and other U.S. IT providers store data from European citizens.

With all this unfavorable publicity, no wonder the company wants to put its best foot forward. $450 million isn’t chicken feed, but given that for its most-recently reported quarter, Google logged net income of $3.5 billion on sales of $20.3 billion, the company can afford it.

Here’s How Amazon Is Fighting for U.S. Drone Deliveries

The race is on for Amazon, the company pushing to bring consumers everything just a little faster—from fresh produce to floss picks, fashion, and furniture.

The e-commerce giant is spending more cash than ever on Capitol Hill, in a bid to finally put commercial delivery drones in the skies and longer delivery trucks on the ground.

The big spending jump for Amazon amzn makes the company Washington’s fastest-growing tech lobby, as The New York Times reports. The Times says in addition to pushing for delivery drone approval, Amazon is also campaigning for longer trucks, more road improvements, and a closer partnership with the United States Postal Service.

Amazon almost doubled its spending in Washington in 2015, dumping nearly $10 million into lobbying, according to data on OpenSecrets.org. Other tech giants still spend more, though. Google googl parent company Alphabet pumped over $16.6 million into its own lobbying efforts in 2015.

Amazon’s Drone Prototype:

The lobbying push comes as Amazon tests out its new airborne delivery bots around the world in Canada, the U.K., and the Netherlands. But the company is still eager to unleash its delivery drones in the U.S. Amazon vice president Paul Misener says the Amazon Air Prime program has several types of delivery drones in development. And NASA is developing a drone air traffic control system to help keep the futuristic deliveries flying smoothly.

But before U.S. customers can order up anything to be delivered via drone, the Federal Aviation Administration must give its own verdict on commercial drone regulations. The FAA says those rules will be ready later this spring.

For now, Amazon can only fly its drones in the U.S. as long as the FAA approves each flight, and the drones remain within the operator’s line of site the entire time the gadget is in the air. That, of course, makes the bots less than useful as a delivery tool. So, despite the new push in Washington by the company, it might still be a while before your next Amazon delivery comes flying in.

Want to find out how much money has been donated to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign? You’re just a Google search away.

The search giant announced on Tuesday that it’s adding campaign finance information for the 2016 presidential nominees to its search results.

Thus, if people search for Donald Trump on Google goog, they should be able to see a quick rundown of campaign finance facts, such as how much money his campaign has raised so far and how much money came from independent donations or super PACs.

The campaign finance information will display in the Knowledge Graph box that appears to the right of the search results, containing a collection of facts related to the search. If a user clicks on the “more campaign finance” button that appears at the bottom of the campaign finance results, he or she should be able to discover even more information, including the top industries donating to the candidate.

The company said that it partnered with the Center for Responsive Politics to deliver the finance data. TheWashington, D.C.-based nonprofit tallies campaign finance and lobbying money as well as other financials related to public policy in a public database.

With the new feature, a Google search on Donald Trump now shows that he’s raised $27.4 million so far from January 2015 to February 2016 with 93% of the money stemming from campaign donations and 7% coming from Super PACs. The results also show that Trump has contributed $17.5 million of his own money for his campaign.

Republican rival Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has raised $96.5 million, with 57% coming from campaign donations and 43% from Super PACs. Retirees are Cruz’s top donators, having contributed $4.2 million to his campaign.

For more on Election 2016, watch:

Democratic nomination Hillary Clinton has so far raised $188 million. Sixty-nine percent of that figure comes from campaign donations while 31% comes from Super PACs. Lawyers and law firms are Clinton’s top contributors, having donated $11.1 million to her campaign.

Clinton’s democratic rival Bernie Sanders has raised $96.3 million, with a whopping 99.97% percent of that cash coming from campaign donations. The results also show that 70% of Sanders’ campaign donations came from contributions of $200 or less.

Nebraska’s Livestock Market Faces Death by Big Meat Lobbying

Few images are more emblematic of the American heartland than that of farmers taking their livestock to market. But if Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts signs a bill passed last month by his state’s legislature, one of the last of the country’s traditional open livestock markets may soon close forever. The bill would remove one of the few safeguards that allow farmers to sell their livestock in a transparent and competitive way.

For decades, nine agricultural states had laws on the books protecting farmers from vertical integration and monopoly power in livestock farming. Those laws took the form of “packer bans,” and basically prohibited slaughterhouse operators from owning livestock and land. The goal was to force those corporations to buy the animals they slaughter in open and competitive markets, at fair market prices.

But over the past 10 years, America’s big meatpacking corporations have successfully pushed to overturn most of those laws. A turning point occurred in 2003, when the Eighth Circuit Court ruled that Iowa’s packer ban violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by discriminating against out-of-state corporations. A similar argument was used to overturn South Dakota’s packer ban that same year. Today, the Competitive Livestock Markets Act in Nebraska is the only strong packer ban that remains.

Today, Nebraska’s packer ban is set to be overturned. LB176, first introduced in January 2015 by State Senator Ken Schilz, would allow corporations to own hogs. Two weeks ago, the state’s legislators voted to advance LB176 to a final reading before sending it to the governor’s desk.

“Nebraska is the last state in the union with a cash market,” says State Senator Al Davis, who voted against the bill. “What happens in Nebraska is going to have an impact on the whole nation.”

The bill is not expected to immediately change the mechanics of Nebraska hog farming in a radical way. On the contrary, most of the same farmers who now raise hogs would continue to raise hogs. But they would do so as “contract growers” for multinational corporations, rather than as independent farm businesses. Under the contract model, farmers raise animals that are technically owned by the meatpackers, and then transport the animals back to the packer when they’re ready for slaughter.

Senator Davis notes that contract farming has become more prevalent in livestock states where packer bans have been overturned, and that the experience in those states shows that the contract model can be dangerous for farmers.

He says that many farmers who sign these contracts “think, ‘this is going to be a great thing.” But farmers often must take on huge loans to pay for the infrastructure required to meet packers’ demands for large herds. And the process by which farmers are paid is highly opaque, with little opportunity for farmers to negotiate a higher price.

When a farmer “can’t market your hogs in any other way besides going through a big corporate entity, you’re going to have to take the price that they offered,” Davis says.

When LB176 was first introduced by Nebraska’s unicameral legislature in 2015 the bill failed to advance beyond the floor debate. This year, the bill advanced to a final reading by a vote of 32-12.

Many opponents of the bill have focused on the role played by Smithfield, the country’s largest pork producer. “This bill was not brought by farmers. It was brought by Smithfield Foods,” says State Senator David Schnoor, who voted against LB176. In the highly consolidated pork industry, Smithfield is one of just four companies—the others being Tyson, JBS, and Cargill—that control 65% of the market. In many regions, only one or two companies dominate.

Lobbying records show that over the course of the first three quarters of 2015, Smithfield spent $46,222 on lobbying Nebraska legislators. Included in those efforts was lobbying in support of LB176. Then in December 2015, Smithfield made $12,450 in donations to 19 state senators who would later vote on LB176. Of those senators, 18 voted to pass the bill. And Smithfield’s tracks in Nebraska extend beyond LB176: the company also made a $10,000 contribution to Governor Ricketts’ gubernatorial campaign in 2014.

Critics of the bill have highlighted Smithfield’s close ties to the Chinese government. In 2013, Smithfield was bought by Shuanghui, a Chinese company now known as WH Group, the largest pork producer in the world. Shuanghui paid nearly $7 billion for Smithfield in the then largest ever acquisition of an American company by a Chinese firm. China’s government bank financed Shuanghui’s acquisition of Smithfield with a $4 billion loan.

Since the acquisition, advocates and policy-makers have expressed concern that this company—which controls 1 in 4 hogs in the United States—wields too much power over this market, and over farm politics in many states.

Many farmers and legislators are worried about the impact LB176 will have on the long-term landscape of farming in Nebraska. “My big fear of course is that this is not just a push for hogs, but also for cattle,” says Senator Davis, voicing a common concern among opponents of the bill. Dave Wright, president of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska, echoes his worry. “Senator Schilz was quite clear that he wants [to overturn the packer ban for] cattle next,” Wright says. “This is just a stepping-stone.”

In the coming weeks, LB176 will undergo a final reading before heading to the governor to sign. In the final reading process, the bill can’t be amended but could be sent back to a prior stage of debate for the addition of amendments. If the bill passes, as many observers think it will, the hog industry in Nebraska will continue to exist; it may just be controlled by a foreign-owned corporation.

The Challenge of Making the Sharing Economy Count

The U.K.’s “sharing economy”—as nebulous a term as that is — creates efficiencies that don’t get factored in when calculating the health of the country’s economy.

That’s the message in a report lobbed at the government Monday by economist Diane Coyle, a professor at the University of Manchester and former government adviser.

According to Coyle, the techniques used to calculate gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.K. don’t capture the economic impact of peer-to-peer activities taking place on platforms such as Uber uber, Fiverr and Airbnb airbnb. As a result, she claimed, the government may be underestimating investment and the size of the British economy, and its statistics could be missing the extra hours people spend on less-formal business activities.

At this point, it’s important to note that Coyle’s report was commissioned by Airbnb and Sharing Economy U.K. The government-backed trade body happens to be chaired by Debbie Wosskow, the CEO of sharing-economy firm Love Home Swap, which are hardly neutral backers.

However, Coyle does have plenty of cred, having literally written the book (well, a book) on GDP.

“It is clear to me that traditional measures of productivity cannot adequately capture the economic impact of the sharing economy, in part because GDP figures do not take into account economic benefits such as time saved, increased choice and lower cost of products—all of which are key consumer benefits of using the sharing economy,” she said in a statement.

For more on the sharing economy, watch the following Fortune video:

Lower prices and reduced purchasing (for instance by using a rideshare platform rather than buying a car) could look like reduced economic growth if not fully recorded, Coyle noted while arguing that more data needs to be collected from individuals, not just businesses and platforms.

Why does this matter? If Coyle’s analysis is correct and the sharing economy is taking off—she thinks its “highly likely” that 3% of the workforce is providing services over platforms such as Airbnb and Uber—then the government should have every incentive to factor this into its calculations. Everyone likes a healthy economy.

For sharing-economy companies, recognition of their claimed contribution would also be handy when lobbying over how such services are regulated. As Wosskow said, “better data will make for a more informed policy debate.”

As it happens, the British government has already demonstrated some friendliness towards these firms. Airbnb itself was legalized (with some restrictions) in London last May, and the mere existence of Sharing Economy U.K., with Wosskow at the top, speaks for itself.

Coyle’s report even comes with a foreword from business secretary Sajid Javid, who gushed: “The contribution to the wider U.K. economy of this sector goes far beyond just an economic one—it’s creating new networks within communities and having a positive impact on the environment by using resources more efficiently.”

While he fell short of promising new stats-collecting practices, Javid hailed the report as an “important landmark in addressing both the productivity and sharing-economy agendas in this country.” Indeed, both of those agendas may be well served by the introduction of new measuring techniques.

Will Lobbying Dollars Put Pfizer and Allergan On The Fast Track?

No one seems to like tax inversions, those deals whereby a U.S. corporation merges into a company in a tax haven to cut its U.S. tax bill, even though many—or most—of its operations remain in the U.S.

President Obama wanted to ban tax inversions in his 2015 budget, Hillary Clinton opposes inversions, and Donald Trump has said that such deals are another reason to overhaul the tax code.

So why does Pfizer seem to think that it can structure a merger with Allergan in a way that would allow Pfizer to be “bought” by its partner and move its headquarters to Allergan’s base of Ireland, one of the world’s great low-tax jurisdictions. The U.S. pharmaceutical giant failed once before, after all, when it attempted a tax inversion with the U.K. firm AstraZeneca earlier this year.

One possible reason is money. Pfizer was the thirtieth largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill in 2014—out of over 3,500 companies—spending $9.5 million in 2014 and $6.2 million so far this year. Taxes was the second most common issue pressed by Pfizer’s 84 lobbyists in the 2013-2014 period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And it appears, from information collected by the Center, that Pfizer has lobbied hard against the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014, a bill before both the House and the Senate.

Apart from donations to individual candidates (more below) and spending by lobbyists on congressional committees, it is difficult to see where Pfizer’s political spending is going. For example, Pfizer PFEis likely a major donor to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a fierce opponent of the Stop Corporate Inversions Act. But no specific donations to trade associations and other organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, of which Pfizer is a prominent member, are disclosed. Bruce Freed from the Center for Political Accountability told Fortune, “Many companies use the Chamber as a cover for tax issues and shaping tax policy to benefit them.”

Ken W. Cole, Pfizer’s senior vice president for government relations, would not comment on Pfizer’s lack of disclosure of donations to think tanks and trade associations, nor would he indicate which organizations were in receipt of such donations.

However, a researcher at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, Brooke Williams, uncovered that Pfizer, among other companies like General Motors and ExxonMobil, had given between $10,000 and $25,000 to the National Bureau of Economic Research. It is difficult to nail down how NBER views tax inversions, though an NBER paper from 2002 gave intellectual cover to tax inversions by suggesting that tax evasion was not the primary impulse behind U.S. companies seeking to incorporate overseas.

It is easier to see which politicians Pfizer contributes to, however. Again, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics from congressional disclosures, the three biggest recipients of Pfizer funding in 2014, the latest year for which complete figures are available, were Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Corey Booker (D-NJ), and outgoing Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Contributions continued in 2015, according to Pfizer’s own latest report from the first half of 2015. Incidentally, Allergan AGN was also a top donor to Boehner in 2014.

Crowley sits on the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means, the second largest target of lobbying money from Pfizer in 2014. None of the bills Crowley sponsored or co-sponsored in 2014 were related to corporate taxes, and back in 2007 Crowley said of tax inversion, “I will continue to work to end this practice that effectively results in corporate tax evasion.”

Still, he has done little to stop that practice in the last eight years. And although his Democratic colleague on the Ways and Means committee Sander Levin (D-MI) is the sponsor of the Stop Corporate Inversions Act, Crowley is not a co-sponsor.

Second in line behind Crowley was Senator Booker. Like Crowley, none of the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored in 2014 were related to corporate taxes. But Booker sits on the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee, another big target for Pfizer’s lobbying dollars.

In remarks he made at a PhRMA annual meeting in Washington, DC in 2014, Booker said that under the current tax structure, American businesses were being forced to compete “with one arm tied behind their back” because of higher domestic taxes. It’s difficult to tell exactly where he stands on the inversion issue, but, again, Booker is not among the co-sponsors of the Senate version of the Stop Corporate Inversions Act.

Pfizer’s political spending is anything but an open book. And the pharmaceutical giant has plenty of company on that front.

Academics join lobbying war between GMO and organic industries

MonsantoMON and other biotechnology industry giants have been combating bad press regarding their genetically modified food products by recruiting academics to speak on their behalf, the New York Times reports.

In a series of emails released under freedom of information laws, Michael Lohuis, director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, proposed giving Florida professor Kevin Folta an unrestricted grant to join the company’s campaign, writing: “This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we’re looking to develop.”

Dr. Folta told the Times that he joined the campaign because he honestly believes that GM technologies are safe, and he had been defending them even prior to being offered a grant. He says that he was never personally compensated, but these companies paid for him to travel in order to testify in favor of GMOs.

Folta was also asked to participate in a website called GMO Answers. The goal of the website was to build trust and support for biotech agriculture. The questions were posted to the site by Ketchum, a public relations company hired by the biotechnology industry. The PR company even provided Folta and other academic participants with answers to a few dozen questions, which Folta posted almost word-for-word under his own name.

The organic industry has also been enlisting academics to fight against lobbying efforts by biotech companies. They were already successful in getting the Senate to pass legislation that bars states from requiring GMO food products to be labeled as such.

Charles Benbrook is one of the academics who works in favor of organics. Benbrook originally worked for the Organic Center, an organization affiliated with the organic industry, and says that “people were just not listening,” so he left and found employment at a university. He says that both the GMO and organic industries are enlisting academics to help them influence the public:

They could conduct those studies on their own and put this information on their website. But nobody would believe them. There is a friggin’ war going on around this stuff. And everyone is looking to gain as much leverage as they can.”

Correction: We originally stated that the emails were released by Monsanto. They were released after Freedom of Information Act requests.